MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Adult Cochlear Implant Patient Performance with Evolving Electrode Technology

2001· article· en· W2043937603 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Terry A. Zwolan, Paul R. Kileny, Sharon L. Smith, Dawna Mills, Dawn Burton Koch, Mary Joe Osberger

Bibliographic record

VenueOtology & Neurotology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCochlear implantCLARIONSpeech perceptionAudiologyImplantClinical trialHearing lossPerceptionSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: In 1998, clinical trials were initiated to evaluate the CLARION Multi-Strategy Cochlear Implant (Advanced Bionics Corp., Sylmar, CA, U.S.A.), a precurved electrode with an electrode positioning system (EPS) in adults with severe to profound hearing impairments. In 1999, clinical trials were initiated to assess the CLARION HiFocus electrode with EPS in a similar group of adults. The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate and compare the preoperative and 1-, 3-, and 6-month postoperative speech perception scores obtained by the first 56 patients implanted with the precurved electrode with EPS and the first 56 patients implanted with the HiFocus electrode with EPS. Speech strategy preferences were additionally noted and compared at each test interval for each group. STUDY DESIGN: All subjects participated in preoperative testing with hearing aids and postoperative (1, 3 and 6 months) testing with either the precurved electrode with EPS or the HiFocus electrode with EPS. Demographic characteristics and preoperative and postoperative speech perception results were compared within and between the 2 groups. SETTING: Data presented here were collected at cochlear implant programs affiliated with tertiary medical centers located in the United States and Canada that participated in the clinical trials. PATIENTS: Patients were postlinguistically deafened adults who received a CLARION cochlear implant. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Within-group evaluations revealed that both groups demonstrated significant improvements on all speech perception measures when 1-month postoperative scores were compared with scores obtained preoperatively with hearing aids. Between-group comparison of demographic data showed that the HiFocus group had a significantly higher mean age at implant and a significantly longer mean duration of deafness than the precurved electrode with EPS group. Statistical comparison of mean speech perception scores showed no significant difference between subjects using the precurved electrode with EPS versus the HiFocus electrode with EPS at the preoperative, 1-, and 3-month test intervals. At the 6-month test interval, the mean CNC Monosyllabic Word Test score obtained by the HiFocus with EPS group was significantly better than the mean score obtained by the group with the precurved electrode with EPS (p < 0.05).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOtology & Neurotology→Same topicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→